Mikel

Lucid, he replied when I talked about the 98.6 degree thing. He said Again, I don't know much about this subject.

Thanks Lucid. Anyone have a reply to my other post?

He also said this in another post and since I do not know much about nucleotide building blocks I was wandering if one of you could help. Since creationists misrepresent and lie about science often (from what I have seen in the past) what is the truth?

What were the conditions of earth's early atmosphere and why do you think so? Could abiogenesis operate in these conditions? I am wandering because I've been seeing alot of source saying it wasn't after I recieved this post on the Miller-Urey experiments:

Wow, thanks.

His second argument was Homochirality somehow arose in the sugars and amino acids of prebiotic soups, although there is no mechanism by which this can occur and is, in fact, prohibited by the second law of thermodynamics (law of entropy). Explain this.

Omg. I just realized the problem with the first argument. At the end of the first week of the Miller-Urey experiments, two percent of the carbon had formed some of the amino acids which are used to make protein enzymes. My problem wasn't the argument but a damn definition. I'm a total idiot. I couldn't find anything about the second argument in that site.

I already have another question. I started a thread for creationists to try to disprove evolution and abiogenesis. Here was the post that I do not know how to answer. I have a few questions to ask those who support abiogenesis. During abiogenesis there is an absence of enzymes which means there is no chemical reaction to make ribose, which is vital to RNA and DNA, how does this work? Homochirality somehow arose in the sugars and amino acids of prebiotic soups, although there is no mechanism by which this can occur and is, in fact, prohibited by the second law of thermodynamics (law of entropy). Explain this. He got this info from here. I tried to find something about it on the talk origins site because I didn't know the answers but I couldn't find anything.

Speciation was the word I was thinking of (although it still isn't consistant with his special evolution definition). Thanks. I'll ask him where he got those definitions, too.

I just heard something from a creationist I have never heard before. He said: Special Evolution: The process by which new species generate from other species due to genetically beneficial mutations. Darwinian Evolution: or Natural Selection the process whereby animals with genetically beneficial characteristics survive and breed more often than those without the given characteristic thereby reinforcing the characteristic in future generations. I would think by special evolution, he means macroevolution but he says "Due to mutations." On Darwinian evolution, it includes both micro and macro and isn't just natural selection. I'm not exactly sure if he's right and I'm just an idiot or i'm right and he's really messed up on both terms but I've never heard special evolution and I doubt he just made it up because I could really debunk his post and he'd know that. I doubt he'd be stupid enough to just make crap up. What's going on here?

Thanks.

Have the Miller-Urey experiments ever been duplicated? I'm debating with a creationist who says they have never been able to.

Wait, if I delete my current folding program, won't that interfere with the 51% done meaning I won't be at 51% done on the new program or something? I'm not exactly sure how it works.

Thanks. That's a detailed explanation.

Thanks guys. What do you think of this argument from another guy. I can't find anything on it. "The chances of a universe like ours forming have been calculated to be 1 in 10 raised to the 400 millionth power. When something has less that a chance of 1 in 10 raised to the 110 millionth power, it is classified as having 0 probability." Big bang probability is something that hasn't crossed my path in debating.